Does Chicago feel like the third largest city? (Highland Park, Lincoln: stats, suburb)

[DavePa]

I always liked this NASA Photo
of Chicago lights and showing
its street-grid at night and plane

[Chicago South Sider]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

Most commentators on this thread aren't being honest, IMO.

Anyone who has been to LA knows it's enormous and feels much bigger than Chicago. LA is a beast, twice the size of Chicago, and in some ways rivaling NYC and Mexico City in terms of vast, endless urbanity. Chicago is much, much smaller.

LA is like a North American version of Tokyo. A massive centerless, interconnected blob of endless medium-dense neighborhoods, but linked by freeways rather than rails.

The size disparity between Los Angeles and Tokyo is much greater than Los Angeles and Chicago. Tokyo is like New York PLUS Los Angeles. I do agree that Los Angeles feels much larger than Chicago once you start driving around the metropolitan area.

[shirleyeve]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

chicago_skyline | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/isaacsingleton/2634336315/ - broken link)

Sorry to derail the topic of the thread here, but in a lot of photos Chicago really reminds of Melbourne, Australia.

Melbourne & Port Phillip Bay by Travis Hale, on Flickr

[Chicago_Person]

Originally Posted by Chicago South Sider

The size disparity between Los Angeles and Tokyo is much greater than Los Angeles and Chicago. Tokyo is like New York PLUS Los Angeles. I do agree that Los Angeles feels much larger than Chicago once you start driving around the metropolitan area.

Yeah. That's the key word. Driving around LA feels much bigger.
Walking around though it's just like eh. One thing to see is here then it's all the way over there then the next thing is all the way over there.

The main parts Chicago has to offer for a weekend trip are within about a 13x4 mile area. That's me using the United Center to the west and Uptown/Hyde Park to the north south. Where as in LA it's like... 30x20 mile area when you do it from Disney to the ocean and Griffith park to like Rat beach or Torrence beach North south

[jfre81]

In terms of an urban environment and scope, and ignoring population counts within imaginary boundaries of arbitrary sizes, it still feels like the Second City to me.

Houston is going to catch Chicago in total population within their respective city limits, but it'll still have a third of the average density, and some of the recent development in Houston amounts to a master-class dissertation on how density and urbanity are not the same thing at all. Inner neighborhoods near downtown Houston have more in common with Jefferson Park than Streeterville, the South Loop or Fulton Market. "EaDo" (east of downtown) in Houston is sort of like its Fulton Market, but it's still on a much smaller magnitude.

[BigLake]

Originally Posted by shirleyeve

Sorry to derail the topic of the thread here, but in a lot of photos Chicago really reminds of Melbourne, Australia.




Melbourne & Port Phillip Bay by Travis Hale, on Flickr

Between those two photos, what is it that you think makes this a comparison?

[BigLake]

Originally Posted by Chicago South Sider

The size disparity between Los Angeles and Tokyo is much greater than Los Angeles and Chicago. Tokyo is like New York PLUS Los Angeles. I do agree that Los Angeles feels much larger than Chicago once you start driving around the metropolitan area.

Agree, Tokyo dwarfs LA. LA is bigger than Chicago, but is certainly not dwarfed. Tokyo and LA are in vastly different leagues, Chicago and LA are in the same general discussion.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by BigLake

Agree, Tokyo dwarfs LA. LA is bigger than Chicago, but is certainly not dwarfed.

It's more people spread over roughly twice the land area, yes.

[BigLake]

Originally Posted by jfre81

It's more people spread over roughly twice the land area, yes.

Metro land area and population, yes LA is much bigger. A sprawler of significant consequence.

[shirleyeve]

Originally Posted by BigLake

Between those two photos, what is it that you think makes this a comparison?

Aside from that photo, I can think of similarities

• They're both cities built on a grid layout
  
• Sprawling suburbs and flat topography
  
• Both skylines dominated by tall, narrow skyscrapers
  
• Both cities are intersected by a river
  
• The city centre of both cities are encircled by a transit loop (a subway style system for Melbourne, elevated railway for Chicago)
  

Other than that I guess it's all down to aesthetic and experience of both cities.